New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1887-06-01
UNIFORMITY IN LIQUOR TAXAHOM

der bill consists in the assertion that the tax
alton it proposes is not uniform. 10 support
this objection the Governor states that tie
Eouor taxation of all other States is uniform
That the readers of THE TRIBUNE may be
enabled 70 SEQ where the truth lies we give
hero the actual facts concerning the existing
linuor laws Of a number OF States, including
those cited by Governor Hill in his veto.
Arkansas has State tax OF $500, county
tax of $500 and local option for the counties.
Wherever there is loal option uniformity Is
obviously nOn-cXstent
Colorado gives the control Of the liquor
traffic to the boards Of trustees and common
councils Ia incorporated towns and cities, and
20 county commissioners in the rural districts.
Those fix licenses for retail trade. The State
alone grants wholesale licenses. Clearly
there is no uniformity here.
In Connecticut licenses are graded as i0l-
lows. In towns Of less than 1900 reputation
800 for all kinds Of liquors and $50 for beer
onlv, in other towns and cities, 500 10 SO
for all kinds Of liquors. The county commits
sjoncrs regulate license fees in each county.
and in towns Of over 5000 they are S2oO Tor
The sale Of all kinds of liquor and 500 for
beer except in Midd'cscX County where the
fees arc $500 for all kinds of liquors and 500
for beer only There is no uniformity here
Florida has local option under the new
constitution and no uniformity.
Georgia has local option and special lcgis
lation for counties, but no uniformity.
Illinois is one Of the States cited by the GOV
crnor. The Harper High License law prevails
there. It fixes the minimum state TAX NJ
500. and gives local authorities the right 70
raise the tax nj discretion. Thus. while n
saloon III Chicago may be taxed only 500
aootLcr IN Peoria NAV lie taxed S|,'Oo OF
any amount up to prohibition. This Is ono
of tho STAT, houor tax systems quoted by
Governor HllI AS an instance of uniformity.
Nassachrsctts naS six grades Of licenses
ranging as follows ID from 500 to $1,000 E:
y from SO TO $50; % from 500
70 $3.50; a. from $50 TO S'oo
~ from $50 to 500: 80 a druggists license
of 81 Beside, thi, any city or town may
have local option by maJmlty vote Inc
uniformity Of this scheme Of taxation Is NOV
conspicuous. A high license ball with MINI
mum of $500 is now before the Legislature
Michigan is another of the States cl'cd oy
tho Governor. Il has State tax oil 500
for all kinds o. liquors and 500 for Deer
This State tax is. rs the Governor SAYS uni
form. but what he omitted To state Is tha
.cs;dcs the State tax there is authority Tor
county and municipal officers to lrclcASc inc
fees and hat this local control Of the liquor
traffic has tho elect Of completely up>ctunG
the uniformity Of the imlost
Texas is another State referred to 10y toy.
c,ro- Hill i has "A STATE tax or license o.
$3.50 bus it also has local license control by
which the tax MAJ bc increased to prohibition.
Tins il auucar, that Governor Hi has no.
,old the whole truth in regard 20 the four
>,o,cs 10 cites but that be has CARRIED the
flcts and by ! disnGcnuou' suppression en-
Jcavorcd e. produce a misleading and talla
cious impression. In Texas also and this
tho Governor forgot TO mcntionl the whole
q the state hqror taN is covered mt" the ''aN'
treasury, rs in the Ncddcr bill
Minnesota does not bear ont the Executive
dic,um about the uniformity OF liquor tANa'
ton The new law fixes the tax a TI'oVO
far cities Of 10000 and over (St. Iaul ana
Ninncapolis) and rs $500 for other places.
This i, the basis of population, which the
Governor affects to think unjust ana unrrc-
ccdcrtcd in tie Vcddcr bill Minnesota also
las local option and is therefore dtuhly cN-
.udcd from the list Of "uaifcrm' states.
In Ml,>l,,irpi there exists ocal option ard
licenses ,.,reirs from 500 TO - 900.
,Js.mri l. : tie Downing IIigh-Llccn~c
| aw and local opuon. The saloon tax Is from
! SO to 5000.
Nebraska has hgh license and local option
without uniformity.
Xorth Care M la, local option and much
.nccial county legislation which Il mcoil-
lnuMc win I:.fGrnlty.
Ohio ha, the Dow law. which imposes tax
Of $500 for liquor and 500 Tor beer ah''
gvc, authority t. local corporations to rnsc
the fees.
Soutb Carolina ha4 a State tax of 800, and
=, much more rs the town authorities may
i nposc which does nos produce uniformity.
Virginia has no State tax but genera
Local Option law.
West virginia puts the control of the saloons
LARGELY into the hands of The county courts
and has Lotoi option too with High License
pcnus> lvaria has just enacted graded
License b,l resembling the Ncddcr bill IN
lrany particulars. 1t graduates the tax ID
g ties and villages according to popu'alion'
+ ms vi .launp Gov' cnor Helps peculiar liquor
taxation cthic>.
Wisconsin has granted licenses on the same
principle and Local Option.
The result of the inquiry into the actual facts
&c lionor taxation in other States of the Union
thus conciusivcly proves that Governor INNS
objection to the Vcdler bill on the ground oil
want of uniformity has no warrant; that the
liquor legislation OF the majority oil the States
of the Union is not uniform that 1t Is on the
contrary adapted to the varying conditions II
is to be applied to; that the Ncddcr bill is IN
accord with general liquor legislation III this
respect, and that the Executive argument is IN
valid. being founded upon false premises.